This can't really be happening...

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Very true, though I was assuming one who already owned, or had access to both cameras ;)

Sorry not to have made that clear in my post.

 

So what is this $3,000 difference? Stock processing and telecine? If I shot a 5 minute short, what would be an approx. shooting ratio for $3k worth?

 

When the time comes, remind me, I'll see what deals I can swing for your telecine. Might be out here in Phila, though, but I am a damned good cook

 

Funny enough is the RANK house I'm getting my S8 footage transferred at is in PA. They charge me $19 roll so if you know of a cheaper house, please let me know.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Just a number I pulled out. Though for something like that it would be possibly 'round a 15 min short on a 4, 5:1 ratio. I have a spreadsheet which over-estimates all my costs for shoots :) and it would be an HD transferr.

 

Which place in PA? It's not in Phila, though there is a Rank here, and a Spirit at our two transfer houses.

[Jamie Lewis]

True, but it seems to be common knowledge that film is so expensive you can't afford it. I was really surprised how cheap 16mm actually was when I first really checked it. I had thought the cost at 2-3x what it really was.

 

Cheers, Dave

 

I was trying my best to shoot on film but the cost of getting it into the computer is where it all adds up. So in the end I'm just using what I have and possibly think of film in the future. Even renting the camera brought the total cost of a 10 minute short on 16mm to over $2700 for everything (camera, stock, develop, tele).

 

If it was cheap to pull it into the computer, I would be all over film. For the time being I'm relegated to maybe using it as a niche play-around with and no NLE editing.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Jamie,

how were you pricing the development telecine? you can normally swing deals on that. I'm about to shoot a short on S16mm 5:! ratio that's 15 minutes long (for the film section 1/2 is animation) and it came in cheaper than that for a supervised transfer. Not that it's incredibly cheap but for a 10 minute film you should shoot a 6:1 for around that price -w- one light or even best light so you can edit.

[Jamie Lewis]

Jamie,

how were you pricing the development telecine? you can normally swing deals on that. I'm about to shoot a short on S16mm 5:! ratio that's 15 minutes long (for the film section 1/2 is animation) and it came in cheaper than that for a supervised transfer. Not that it's incredibly cheap but for a 10 minute film you should shoot a 6:1 for around that price -w- one light or even best light so you can edit.

 

It was $1600 for stock, developing and tele at a 5:1. Add in the camera rental and insurance and it skyrockets.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

short end recans! Or make friends with students and steal their stock/insurance! muhahahah.

[K Borowski]

Funny how a 40-year-old Arri 2C build 1 still works 100% of the time...

 

Well, this certainly isn't the case for every film camera built though. Film cameras require constant service, are subject to constant threat of scratching, hairs in the gate, stability issues and fogging issues, which take a decent amount of time to test EVERY SHOOT, even if you own them.

 

This is a frustrating part of working with film.

 

Also remember that we shouldn't ignore the advantages that 100 years worth of a head start has given film cameras. The first film cameras didn't have motors, were probably far more scratch and fog prone, and the first films were subject to exploding or catching a uniquely deadly type of fire that could not be put out even with water.

 

The fundamental advantage (and disadvantage given that they are in need of constant sales volume to stay in the business) of film cameras is that their stocks are constantly being improved by the comapnies, and every frame is unique, which eliminates the problems of dead pixels, aliasing, and the inevitable death of a sensor chip after shooting so many hours of footage.

 

There is also an issue of mechanical simplicity. A film camera is just a box, albeit a more complicated box than a still-frame camera, but it's sole purpose is to transport, expose, and keep free of fog light-sensitive media as it travels through the camera, which is child's play in comparison to building a digital camera. The lens is far more important than the camera itself except when ramping, high-speed, shutter angles, or slow-motion comes into effect. The film is the technological advancement, and even here, physically film is still simple, 100-yea-rold technology. In terms of simplicity though, the simpler a design the more inherent advantages there are to that design in that there are fewer problems that can arise. A camera with 1,000 parts has exactly 1,000 things that can go wrong with it. A camera with a million parts has exactly 1,000,000 things that can go wrong with it.

 

Like Mr. Scott said "The more they overtake the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain."

 

Not that digital's complexity doesn't have definite advantages, just that there are that many more things that can and will go wrong with it, because there are so many more complicated parts in digital cameras.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Amen Karl.

 

Though I think that a camera with 1,000 parts has 1,000^1000 things which can go wrong with it (each part interacting with every other part unless it's only i part which can go wrong where it would be 1000*999*998*997. . .), Sorry just had to flaunt the one thing I know about math!

 

Though that's still better than (1^6)1^6 that can go wrong with 1,000,000 parts. . .

Edited July 25, 2008 by Adrian Sierkowski

[Patrizio De Sica]

So what is this $3,000 difference? Stock processing and telecine? If I shot a 5 minute short, what would be an approx. shooting ratio for $3k worth?

 

 

 

Funny enough is the RANK house I'm getting my S8 footage transferred at is in PA. They charge me $19 roll so if you know of a cheaper house, please let me know.

 

 

I would sincerely like to watch those S8 rolls coming from you...

[K Borowski]

I seriously doubt that this is really the case on any budgeted show, they don't own cameras and the cost difference between a viper or F23 shoot and 35mm is actually often nil. The idea of a new camera every 3 to 5 years seems very wasteful to me and if you have seen batman you know that the very highest quality results are had on film so why would anybody strive for anything but the best?

 

 

-Rob-

 

Rob, the answer to your question is simple: Shooting on IMAX isn't easy. Why do you think man hasn't been back to the moon in 3 1/2 decades now?

 

Modern men don't want to work at anything, they just want to write code to make it easy with computerized equipment doing all of the dirty work for them, results be damned.

 

I really love this new generation of cinematographers that doesn't know what an F/stop is! Unbelievable. Maybe it is a good thing they're bringing in digital IMAX. What the hell good is a $40,000 IMAX print if no one in the audience even recognizes its benefits or stunning image clarity.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

I would sincerely like to watch those S8 rolls coming from you...

 

Do you really want to or are you just being sarcastic in regards to my "inferior Super 8 format as compared to your RED camera?"

[Thomas James]

16mm film does not even meet high definition requirements unless you are shooting at 60 frames per second.

[Brian Drysdale]

16mm film does not even meet high definition requirements unless you are shooting at 60 frames per second.

 

Super 16 should be close to a Varicam, the problem seems to be the grain on the 500ASA stocks on the transmission chain.

[John Brawley]

16mm film does not even meet high definition requirements unless you are shooting at 60 frames per second.

 

 

How so ?

 

jb

[Scott Fritzshall]

16mm film does not even meet high definition requirements unless you are shooting at 60 frames per second.

Seriously just stop.

[David Auner aac]

16mm film does not even meet high definition requirements unless you are shooting at 60 frames per second.

 

What? Are you trying to start a flame war film vs. digital or do you have any insight/experience do back up that claim? Most of the HD stuff I shot up to this point was 25P or 50i, some 1080, some 720. Why should 25 fps 16mm not be sufficient? And how should film stock that can be scanned at more resolution than 1920 be insufficient either? I strongly suggest you put a little more detail into your posts to avoid being misunderstood, unless your just trying to kick up some dirt. In latter case consider this my lost post on the topic.

 

Regards, Dave

[Stephen Williams]

What? Are you trying to start a flame war film vs. digital or do you have any insight/experience do back up that claim? Most of the HD stuff I shot up to this point was 25P or 50i, some 1080, some 720. Why should 25 fps 16mm not be sufficient? And how should film stock that can be scanned at more resolution than 1920 be insufficient either? I strongly suggest you put a little more detail into your posts to avoid being misunderstood, unless your just trying to kick up some dirt. In latter case consider this my lost post on the topic.

 

Regards, Dave

 

Hi Dave,

 

There is a guy at the BBC called Andy, probably the source of Thomas's info, Geoff Boyle described him at a tw*t on CML.

 

Stephen

[Brian Drysdale]

Hi Dave,

 

There is a guy at the BBC called Andy, probably the source of Thomas's info, Geoff Boyle described him at a tw*t on CML.

 

Stephen

 

 

Discovery HD also have an issue over Super 16 " they say that: "High definition datacine transfers of this material do not currently produce results that are acceptable for usage in Discovery HD programs".

 

They seem say that the transfer is the problem rather than the Super 16. It could also just be the old engineer thing about film again.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I can see their issue with S16mm due to the nature of the grain and their compression algorithms for broadcast. At least, that was my understanding of it, though ironically they [discovery hd] did just release all that NASA footage on HD. . .

[Thomas James]

Yes concerning 16mm this is the opinion of the BBC. However one must remember that the BBC is a 1080 network. For 720p networks 16mm film may work just fine. However one must remember that the only time that 720p or 16mm film is sharper than 1080p or 35mm film is when you are shooting at 60 frames per second in which case 720p or 16mm is sharper because you are eliminating motion blurring.

 

ASC members who advocate higher frame rates for cinematography advise that this should be done with caution to avoid making your film look like video. Therefore the action sequences can use higher frame rates but drama sequences should use lower frame rates. Doug Trumbell filmed the drama sequences of Brainstorm starring Natalie Wood at 24 fps but the virtual reality sequences were filmed at 60 fps for a more hyper reality look.

[David Auner aac]

Yes concerning 16mm this is the opinion of the BBC. However one must remember that the BBC is a 1080 network. For 720p networks 16mm film may work just fine. However one must remember that the only time that 720p or 16mm film is sharper than 1080p or 35mm film is when you are shooting at 60 frames per second in which case 720p or 16mm is sharper because you are eliminating motion blurring.

 

Hi Thomas,

 

thanks for clearing that one up. I'm just so tired of all these arsonist comments thrown either way in the RED vs. the world debate.

Interesting, nevertheless. I, for one, really don't like shooting at anything higher than 25p unless motivated as Trumbull did. And what about a really nice 2k scan off S16? Or are you talking about R16 only?

 

Thanks, Dave

[Stephen Williams]

Hi Thomas,

 

thanks for clearing that one up. I'm just so tired of all these arsonist comments thrown either way in the RED vs. the world debate.

Interesting, nevertheless. I, for one, really don't like shooting at anything higher than 25p unless motivated as Trumbull did. And what about a really nice 2k scan off S16? Or are you talking about R16 only?

 

Thanks, Dave

 

Hi Dave,

 

I believe the issue is grainy stocks, because the grain (& any image weave) 'wastes' bandwidth. I don't think the BBC bothered to test low speed stocks as they were not looking for a solution.

 

Stephen

[Freya Black]

The BBC HD channel is still kind of experimental and it may end up going at least partly 720p in the long term, it just depends what they can make work.

 

I think the big problem for the BBC is there is very little space for them to fit in a HD channel. They are hoping that the mpeg4 compression will save them but it is likely that the video will be very low bitrate, although they already have this problem in SD. I think they are worried that the codecs will be so pushed and barely working that they won't be able to cope very well at all with any grain or noise.

 

It's all a bit of a moot point tho as the BBC shoots hardly anything in HD anyway. I hear Gardeners World is now HD and of course Torchwood is shot in HD as they always like to say, but HD is not very common at present, it's mostly digibeta etc. That may change in time as they get themselves more sorted out with it all.

 

love

 

Freya

[K Borowski]

@Thomas James re 16mm not meeting HD requirements: BULLSHIT!!!

 

Watch "When We Left the Earth" to see 16mm from the early 1960s embarass 1080i cameras, and this is *cropped* Regular 16 as the idiots that did the programming didn't

"pillarbox" it, they went for jilt and tilt the whole way through (unfortunately :( ) instead.

 

I'd say that 1080i definitely makes '18 look bad, unless it's severely underrated like a full stop or more, so I personally wouldn't go above 200T stocks if I were shooting for 1080i or 35mm blowup, but go see "March of the Penguins" shot on 16mm probably the old '45 and it looks incredible! Better than "The X-Files" graininess from shooting high-speed 35mm the whole time.

 

Super 16 is definitely still viable, the problems are the high-speed stocks, shitty compression codecs that can't even resolve full 1080i resolution, and idiots that don't understand one or both of these isssues and just assume that all film is bad. 1080p uncompressed on 7201 please! :wub:

Edited July 27, 2008 by Karl Borowski

[John Brawley]

Yes concerning 16mm this is the opinion of the BBC.

 

 

No. this is the opinion of ONE PART of the BBC. This is BS that continuously gets spruiked as fact, by people like you with an agenda. Nowhere on the BBC site in their deliverables section does it say "no super 16"

 

You also didn't answer my question. "How so ?"

 

 

You answer about brainstorm is also BS, because if you know the full story you'd know that doug's experiments lead him to believe that higher frame rates weren't appropriate all of the time, which is why brainstorm only had sections that were at 60 FPS, and he then spun the idea of into a ride format (showscan), where short duration's made it easier for the audience to take it.

 

This is the same guy who describes film grain as undesirable.

 

jb